It's an issue of unknown unknowns... if you don't understand technical issues, you might not see why there's an issue in the RIAA suits that would call for a technology expert.
How about the fact that the age of consent is below 18 in most states, meaning that while it's legal for teenagers to engage in all sorts of sexual activity, a girl taking a picture in her underwear can land her in prison for 10 years with a permanent registration as a danger to children?
If you don't see anything wrong with that, you need your vision checked.
They might say that, but they aren't including the important caveats. The maximum exclusion period is one year, and any creditable coverage counts against that period. Thus, if your mother has been insured for more than a year without a significant break (63 days), there is no legal way to apply a pre-existing condition exclusion to her.
What you describe isn't an issue of pre-existing condition exclusions, but rather higher premiums on the basis of coverage.
The problem is that attempting to get health insurance as an individual means you're not spreading the risk amongst a group; since you're already sick, the risk is instead a certainty. I'm dealing with this same problem right now, as I have to pay $500 / month for COBRA, which is still cheaper than finding the same coverage in an individual form.
A pre-existing condition exclusion is when they say "Sure, we'll take your money, but we won't pay out for any claim based on this condition." The duration of those exclusions are limited to one year, and any creditable coverage reduces the duration of that exclusion (and, if memory serves, any condition arising during prior creditable coverage doesn't qualify as a pre-existing condition).
Really? You think someone decided to "protect" her by leaving a disease untreated, a disease that can be fatal if left unchecked?
Also, pre-existing condition exclusions don't really apply if you had heath insurance within the last 63 days (called a "significant break" by HIPAA). So long as she maintains coverage, the Crohn's will remain covered when she changes to new insurances.
So you don't think courts should have power over property where they don't have power over a known owner (such as when the owner is outside of the jurisdiction)?
To restate what I said below, reforming civil forfeiture laws is a worthy goal, but you don't do yourself any favors if you start calling for ridiculously over-inclusive 'remedies.'
The fact that you seem to think a comment saying "there are problems with civil forfeiture" indicates civil forfeiture "is peachy-keen fine" is a reflection of your reading comprehension, not my morals.
Yes, forfeiture is an unpleasant practice. Nonetheless, if you want to convince people that it's bad, the solution isn't to talk about "money's right to 5th amendment protection."
The complaint ultimately boils down to it lacking in fundamental due process rights. If you focus on that rather than throwing in a collection of irrelevant constitutional amendments, you'd probably be more successful in convincing people that the power should be constrained.
You think that a constitutional amendment sharply curtailing the powers of government to exercise power over property in its jurisdiction is justified by the fact that in rem jurisdiction leads to funny case names?
Courts not only have jurisdiction in personam, over people, but also in rem, over property. Civil forfeiture takes advantage of this in order to seize illegal assets, where the court has jurisdiction over the property in question.
The owner of the property still maintains Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment protections against unreasonable seizure. Seizing illegally obtained property is not unreasonable, and thus the Fourth Amendment isn't violated.
Also, you might want to reread the Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Amendments; the right to an attorney and the right against self-incrimination do not apply in civil trials. Further, the Fifth Amendment attaches only to persons, and the Seventh Amendment applies only to suits under the common law, which does not include the statutory basis of civil forfeiture of illegally obtained assets.
Sure, there are problems with civil forfeiture, but if you want to oppose the practice, it'd be helpful if you had even an inkling of an idea what the hell you were talking about.
Poulsen's avenue of attack is discussed as if it were an intractable problem of Internet voting. Really, Arizona could defeat this attack with a simple addition to the process: require an additional mailed copy of the ballot. Compare the physical copy with the electronic copy. If anyone's differs significantly, you know there's someone trying to rig the election. As an added bonus, you have a trail for the FBI to follow in determining who's going to spend some quality time in a small room.
You can infer that the app does exactly what it says on the tin because the University, which is clearly concerned about civil liability as demonstrated by its acceptable use policy, has made representations about the extent of what it does (which means they're liable for fraud should they do anything beyond that). University in-house counsel are quite risk-averse, and it's not like they don't have end-users over the rail when it comes to agreeing to use this thing or not have network access. In short, they have every incentive to tell the truth about the nature of the program, and no real incentive to lie.
If you're going to assume bad faith in every interaction with every other person, you're going to have quite a bit of difficulty engaging with the modern world.
Hell, it's not like you can't trust-but-verify. Install the thing on a sandbox and watch what it does. Decompile it and look at the assembly for anything flaky.
As for ICS, the reason for disallowing it is very simple: it opens a hole in the network. Is this really a difficult question from an IT security standpoint?
If you're really going to refuse to enroll at any university with standard network protection protocols and agreements, you're going to be awfully limited in your efforts to obtain a post-secondary education.
You could always use TrueCrypt or similar products to protect anything remotely sensitive from snooping while you're on their network. So long as you know when the Client Security Agent is running, simply keep those partitions dismounted while the Agent is running, and they won't be able to see your stash of boring porn.
However, this isn't a particularly disorganized or egregious network usage policy. What language, exactly, do you think "expose[s your] web browsing habits, emails, and . . . passwords?" Also, looking at the "Client Security Agent," it appears to be nothing more than an app to turn on automatic updates, disable internet connection sharing, and check your anti-virus.
You're assuming that if you just pretend race doesn't exist, it won't matter, and thus completely ignoring the problems of systemic and internalized racism.
In terms of statistics, racism acts like a systemic error rather than random error. And like systemic error, if you just ignore it, it's not going to go away - it's going to continue to taint your results.
If you read the article, you would see that Google has to do with this because they chose to add in maps that demarcate the old caste system. By making that decision, they chose to assist in the cultural problem.
How exactly do you think this is corruption? Craigslist got a preliminary injunction because of their pending lawsuit claiming that the state's prosecution is a violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
No. If you represent a client pro bono, that means that client won't be paying your fees. If you qualify for the various exceptions to the US rule that parties bear the cost of litigation, you can still take advantage of fee-shifting rules.
The only difference this bill makes is that it changes the procedure for paying an existing tax, to increase compliance with existing tax liability. Forcing people to pay taxes they already owe is not a tax increase.
This is a federal bill that allows states to collect taxes which are already owed. Individual tax liability will not increase. Instead, individuals will simply be forced to pay (by online retailers) the sales tax they already owe.
Slashdot Mirror
Non-credible threats are still illegal, and thus it is a valid exercise of state power to attempt to prosecute people for making them.
No, it's stating that states may not MAKE anything but gold and silver coin a tender.
That means they can't design their own legal tender. It doesn't mean that they can't accept legal tender made by the federal government.
It's an issue of unknown unknowns... if you don't understand technical issues, you might not see why there's an issue in the RIAA suits that would call for a technology expert.
How about the fact that the age of consent is below 18 in most states, meaning that while it's legal for teenagers to engage in all sorts of sexual activity, a girl taking a picture in her underwear can land her in prison for 10 years with a permanent registration as a danger to children?
If you don't see anything wrong with that, you need your vision checked.
They might say that, but they aren't including the important caveats. The maximum exclusion period is one year, and any creditable coverage counts against that period. Thus, if your mother has been insured for more than a year without a significant break (63 days), there is no legal way to apply a pre-existing condition exclusion to her.
What you describe isn't an issue of pre-existing condition exclusions, but rather higher premiums on the basis of coverage.
The problem is that attempting to get health insurance as an individual means you're not spreading the risk amongst a group; since you're already sick, the risk is instead a certainty. I'm dealing with this same problem right now, as I have to pay $500 / month for COBRA, which is still cheaper than finding the same coverage in an individual form.
A pre-existing condition exclusion is when they say "Sure, we'll take your money, but we won't pay out for any claim based on this condition." The duration of those exclusions are limited to one year, and any creditable coverage reduces the duration of that exclusion (and, if memory serves, any condition arising during prior creditable coverage doesn't qualify as a pre-existing condition).
Really? You think someone decided to "protect" her by leaving a disease untreated, a disease that can be fatal if left unchecked?
Also, pre-existing condition exclusions don't really apply if you had heath insurance within the last 63 days (called a "significant break" by HIPAA). So long as she maintains coverage, the Crohn's will remain covered when she changes to new insurances.
So you don't think courts should have power over property where they don't have power over a known owner (such as when the owner is outside of the jurisdiction)?
To restate what I said below, reforming civil forfeiture laws is a worthy goal, but you don't do yourself any favors if you start calling for ridiculously over-inclusive 'remedies.'
The fact that you seem to think a comment saying "there are problems with civil forfeiture" indicates civil forfeiture "is peachy-keen fine" is a reflection of your reading comprehension, not my morals.
Yes, forfeiture is an unpleasant practice. Nonetheless, if you want to convince people that it's bad, the solution isn't to talk about "money's right to 5th amendment protection." The complaint ultimately boils down to it lacking in fundamental due process rights. If you focus on that rather than throwing in a collection of irrelevant constitutional amendments, you'd probably be more successful in convincing people that the power should be constrained.
You think that a constitutional amendment sharply curtailing the powers of government to exercise power over property in its jurisdiction is justified by the fact that in rem jurisdiction leads to funny case names?
Courts not only have jurisdiction in personam, over people, but also in rem, over property. Civil forfeiture takes advantage of this in order to seize illegal assets, where the court has jurisdiction over the property in question.
The owner of the property still maintains Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment protections against unreasonable seizure. Seizing illegally obtained property is not unreasonable, and thus the Fourth Amendment isn't violated.
Also, you might want to reread the Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Amendments; the right to an attorney and the right against self-incrimination do not apply in civil trials. Further, the Fifth Amendment attaches only to persons, and the Seventh Amendment applies only to suits under the common law, which does not include the statutory basis of civil forfeiture of illegally obtained assets.
Sure, there are problems with civil forfeiture, but if you want to oppose the practice, it'd be helpful if you had even an inkling of an idea what the hell you were talking about.
Because the electronic version allows you to have the ballots in before the polls close. The paper version would just be for verification.
Poulsen's avenue of attack is discussed as if it were an intractable problem of Internet voting. Really, Arizona could defeat this attack with a simple addition to the process: require an additional mailed copy of the ballot. Compare the physical copy with the electronic copy. If anyone's differs significantly, you know there's someone trying to rig the election. As an added bonus, you have a trail for the FBI to follow in determining who's going to spend some quality time in a small room.
You can infer that the app does exactly what it says on the tin because the University, which is clearly concerned about civil liability as demonstrated by its acceptable use policy, has made representations about the extent of what it does (which means they're liable for fraud should they do anything beyond that). University in-house counsel are quite risk-averse, and it's not like they don't have end-users over the rail when it comes to agreeing to use this thing or not have network access. In short, they have every incentive to tell the truth about the nature of the program, and no real incentive to lie.
If you're going to assume bad faith in every interaction with every other person, you're going to have quite a bit of difficulty engaging with the modern world.
Hell, it's not like you can't trust-but-verify. Install the thing on a sandbox and watch what it does. Decompile it and look at the assembly for anything flaky.
As for ICS, the reason for disallowing it is very simple: it opens a hole in the network. Is this really a difficult question from an IT security standpoint?
If you're really going to refuse to enroll at any university with standard network protection protocols and agreements, you're going to be awfully limited in your efforts to obtain a post-secondary education.
You could always use TrueCrypt or similar products to protect anything remotely sensitive from snooping while you're on their network. So long as you know when the Client Security Agent is running, simply keep those partitions dismounted while the Agent is running, and they won't be able to see your stash of boring porn.
However, this isn't a particularly disorganized or egregious network usage policy. What language, exactly, do you think "expose[s your] web browsing habits, emails, and . . . passwords?" Also, looking at the "Client Security Agent," it appears to be nothing more than an app to turn on automatic updates, disable internet connection sharing, and check your anti-virus.
The key is to take the fight to the Senior Partners... well, and hope they don't send you to Hell afterwards.
That's because Circuit decisions are rendered by three-judge panels chosen at random from the judges of that Circuit, and there are 22 judges on the Second Circuit.
How does not specifically labeling districts as unclean imply a desire to "forget the lessons of history?"
You're assuming that if you just pretend race doesn't exist, it won't matter, and thus completely ignoring the problems of systemic and internalized racism.
In terms of statistics, racism acts like a systemic error rather than random error. And like systemic error, if you just ignore it, it's not going to go away - it's going to continue to taint your results.
If you read the article, you would see that Google has to do with this because they chose to add in maps that demarcate the old caste system. By making that decision, they chose to assist in the cultural problem.
How exactly do you think this is corruption? Craigslist got a preliminary injunction because of their pending lawsuit claiming that the state's prosecution is a violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
No. If you represent a client pro bono, that means that client won't be paying your fees. If you qualify for the various exceptions to the US rule that parties bear the cost of litigation, you can still take advantage of fee-shifting rules.
The only difference this bill makes is that it changes the procedure for paying an existing tax, to increase compliance with existing tax liability. Forcing people to pay taxes they already owe is not a tax increase.
This is a federal bill that allows states to collect taxes which are already owed. Individual tax liability will not increase. Instead, individuals will simply be forced to pay (by online retailers) the sales tax they already owe.